RESEARCH REPORT MAY 2018 School Closings in Chicago

RESEARCH REPORT MAY 2018

School Closings in Chicago

Staff and Student Experiences and Academic Outcomes

Molly F. Gordon, Marisa de la Torre, Jennifer R. Cowhy, Paul T. Moore, Lauren Sartain, and David Knight with commentaries by Eve L. Ewing, University of Chicago and Douglas N. Harris, Tulane University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary 7 Introduction

Chapter 1

13 Overview of the School Closings Context and Process

Chapter 2

23 Planning and Transitioning into Designated Welcoming Schools

Chapter 3

33 Building Relationships and School Cultures in Welcoming Schools

Chapter 4

45 Impact on Student Outcomes

Chapter 5

57 Interpretive Summary 61 Commentaries 65 References 69 Appendices

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge all of the educators and students who graciously let us into their schools, generously gave their time, and shared their experiences with us. The authors are indebted to each of the welcoming school leaders who agreed to participate in this study, and to the staff members who helped us schedule the site visit interviews, collect parent/guardian permission forms, and organize the student focus groups. We would also like to acknowledge the Chicago Public Schools for providing us with the administrative data that allowed us to do this work.

The authors also appreciate the many individuals who contributed to this report. We thank Maheema Haque for helping us code interviews, summarize qualitative data, and for contributions to the literature review. We were also fortunate to have the input of several people who provided constructive criticism along the way. We are grateful to our Consortium colleagues who read multiple drafts of the report and provided us with helpful suggestions for improvement, including Elaine Allensworth, Kylie Klein, Bronwyn McDaniel, Eliza Moeller, Jenny Nagaoka, Penny Sebring, and Jessica Tansey. Furthermore, prior to writing this report, we presented preliminary findings to several groups, including to members of our Steering Committee, the Consortium Investors Council, and program staff at the Spencer Foundation and the Chicago Community Trust. At each presentation, participants asked us thought-provoking questions and offered helpful suggestions for our analysis, interpretation, and subsequent writing. We also received vital feedback on the penultimate draft from two external reviewers, James Kemple and Mary Pattillo, who provided important points for us to consider as we finalized this report. In addition, we received extensive written feedback on the penultimate draft from several Steering Committee members, including Gina Caneva, Lynn Cherkasky-Davis, Lila Leff, Shazia Miller, and Beatriz Ponce de Le?n. We thank them for their close read and thoughtful comments. We also thank our colleague Todd Rosenkranz, who conducted a thorough technical read of the report, and the UChicago Consortium's communications team, including Bronwyn McDaniel, Jessica Tansey, and Jessica Puller, who were instrumental in the production of this report.

We are grateful to the Spencer Foundation and the Chicago Community Trust for supporting this work and providing us with the necessary resources to conduct the analyses and write the report. We also gratefully acknowledge the Spencer Foundation and the Lewis-Sebring Family Foundation, whose operating grants support the work of the UChicago Consortium. Finally, we greatly appreciate the support from the Consortium Investor Council that funds critical work beyond the initial research: putting the research to work, refreshing the data archive, seeding new studies, and replicating previous studies. Members include: Brinson Foundation, Chicago Community Trust, CME Group Foundation, Crown Family Philanthropies, Lloyd A. Fry Foundation, Joyce Foundation, Lewis- Sebring Family Foundation, McDougal Family Foundation, Osa Foundation, Polk Bros. Foundation, Robert McCormick Foundation, Spencer Foundation, Steans Family Foundation, and The Chicago Public Education Fund.

Cite as: Gordon, M.F., de la Torre, M., Cowhy, J.R., Moore, P.T., Sartain, L.S., & Knight, D. (2018). School closings in Chicago: Staff and student experiences and academic outcomes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.

This report was produced by the UChicago Consortium's publications and communications staff: Bronwyn McDaniel, Director of Outreach and Communication; Jessica Tansey, Communications Manager; and Jessica Puller, Communications Specialist.

Graphic Design: Jeff Hall Design Photography: Eileen Ryan Editing: Katelyn Silva, Jessica Puller, Jessica Tansey, Andrew Zou, and Gina Kim

05.2018/PDF/jh.design@

Executive Summary

Across the country, urban school districts are opting to close underenrolled schools as a way to consolidate resources. Motivated by a reported $1 billion deficit and declining enrollments in depopulating neighborhoods, the Chicago Board of Education voted in May 2013 to close 49 elementary schools and one high school program located in an elementary school--the largest mass school closure to date. In order to accommodate the nearly 12,000 displaced students, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) designated specific "welcoming" schools for each of the closed schools.1

Although cost savings was the primary stated reason for closing schools, city and district officials saw this as an opportunity to move students into higher-rated schools and provide them with better academic opportunities. Underutilized schools, the district argued, were not serving students well. Supporters of the policy hoped that exposing students to better environments would generate academic gains and offset negative consequences.

There was strong, vocal opposition to the policy, including from the Chicago Teachers Union as well as from many families, students, and community groups. Most of the schools slated for closure were located in historically disinvested and primarily Black neighborhoods, with many of the schools serving areas of the city with high unemployment and crime rates. Critics feared that closing schools in these areas would destabilize communities and disrupt the lives of children and families, affecting their safety and security. Many also worried about students in welcoming schools and how they might be affected by large enrollment increases.

Prior studies on school closures have looked at the effects of closing schools on students' test scores, with a

few studies looking at effects on student attendance and GPA. Evidence has shown that students experienced minimal or negative short-term effects beginning in the announcement year, with no long-term positive impacts.2 Prior studies from the UChicago Consortium on School Research (UChicago Consortium) and others have shown that these effects were mitigated when students attended significantly higher-performing schools or had fewer disruptions.3 A small number of qualitative studies have investigated how closing schools affects students, families, and staff. Findings reveal several potentially negative effects, including on student and teacher relationships.4 Missing from prior studies is an in-depth understanding and comparison of the experiences of staff and students across multiple receiving schools. In addition, most studies have not looked beyond test scores to other kinds of relevant outcomes, such as mobility or suspension rates for displaced students or students in receiving schools. Policymakers need more information to understand the pros and cons, and implications, of closing schools.

1 Throughout the report we refer to district-designated welcoming schools as welcoming schools and other CPS schools where displaced students attended as receiving schools.

2 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Kirshner, Gaertner, & Pozzoboni (2010); Barrow, Park, & Schanzenbach (2011); Engberg, Gill, Zamarro, & Zimmer (2012); Brummet (2014); Bross, Harris, & Liu (2016); Larsen (2014); Steinberg, Scull, & MacDonald (2015).

3 de la Torre & Gwynne (2009); Barrow et al. (2011); Engberg et al. (2012); Kemple (2015); Bross et al. (2016).

4 South & Haynie (2004); Deeds & Pattillo (2014); Cole & Cole (1993); Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman (1994).

UCHICAGO Consortium Research Report | School Closings in Chicago

1

In this report, we provide evidence of the short-term and multi-year impacts of the 2013 CPS school closures on students' academic, behavioral, and other relevant outcomes. We also illuminate the voices and experiences of the staff and students most directly affected by closures across six welcoming schools.

Our study addresses two primary research questions:

Research Question 1: How did staff and students affected by school closings experience the school closings process and subsequent transfer into designated welcoming schools?

Research Question 2: What effect did closing schools have on closed and welcoming schools students' mobility, attendance, suspensions, test scores, and core GPAs? 5

To answer our research questions, we used a mixed methods design. This design allowed us to zoom in to illustrate what it was like for staff and students going through the school closings process in six welcoming schools, and zoom out to look at the impact of the policy on all affected students on a variety of outcomes.

Financial, utilization, and performance challenges faced by districts will likely result in more school closures in the future, in Chicago and elsewhere around the country. We hope findings from this report will provide helpful information for policymakers, educators, community members, families, and students to consider when closures are proposed.

CONTEXT

2013 School Closings in Chicago

In early December 2012, CPS identified a list of 330 underutilized elementary and high schools at risk for closures.6 By February 2013, the district narrowed down the list to 129 elementary schools that were still under consideration. At the end of March 2013, CPS announced the final list of 53 schools and one program recommended for closure, and a final vote was set for the end of May 2013. Ultimately, 47 elementary schools

and one high school program at an elementary school were closed at the end of the 2012?13 school year, primarily in the south and west sides of the city. Two other elementary schools were phased out the following year. Communities and schools had several occasions from December 2012 to May 2013 to attend meetings and hearings to advocate that their school be removed from the different recommended closure lists because of the staggered process for and the late announcement of the final list of school closures.

The district assigned students from closed schools to specific welcoming schools. These schools had to be within one mile of the closed school, higher-rated than the closed school (according to the district performance policy rating), and have enough available seats to accommodate students. The district invested resources in these welcoming schools, such as new or upgraded technology and extra discretionary funds for the first year, to enhance their learning environment and to prepare for the influx of students. In 14 cases, CPS determined that the closed school building should house the welcoming school, meaning that welcoming school staff and students had to relocate to the closed school buildings.

When the closures took place at the end of the 2012? 13 school year, nearly 12,000 students were attending the 47 elementary schools that closed that year, close to 17,000 students were attending the 48 designated welcoming schools, and around 1,100 staff were employed in the closed schools. Thirty-six of the closed schools had a Level 3 rating ("on probation;" the lowest of three possible ratings), 11 had a Level 2 rating ("good standing;" the middle of three possible ratings), and none had a Level 1 rating ("excellent standing;" the highest of three possible ratings) in 2012?13. In contrast, 13 of the designated welcoming schools had an "on probation" rating, 23 had a "good standing" rating and 12 had an "excellent standing" rating that same year.

Sixty-six percent of students from closed schools attended the 48 designated welcoming schools. The rest enrolled in 311 other schools in the district.7 On

5 Core GPA is the combination of grades in English, math, science and social studies classes.

6 CPS labeled a school as underutilized if the enrollment of the

school was below 80 percent of its capacity, measured in fall 2012. 7 Six percent of students from closed schools transferred out of

the district--a rate similar to prior years for the closed schools.

2

Executive Summary

average, a designated welcoming school received 150 displaced students, accounting for 32 percent of their student population in fall 2013. However, some of the designated welcoming schools doubled in size, while others only received a small percentage of students from their corresponding closed school.

While the changes in the population of students and teachers suggest welcoming schools had to make major adjustments, to really understand what happened requires listening to student and staff experiences.

KEY FINDINGS

Student and Staff Experiences

To understand student and staff experiences, we identified six welcoming schools in which to conduct in-depth case studies, and interviewed educators and students in these schools.8 The highlighted qualitative findings represent the key themes we found across the six case study schools and are based on the views, experiences, and perceptions of staff and students in these schools.9

? School staff said that the planning process for merging closed schools into welcoming schools was not sufficient, resulting in staff feeling unprepared. Once welcoming schools were identified, the district asked staff to produce written transition plans outlining how the schools would serve their new student populations. To help support principals in this process, the district provided them with principal transition coordinators. Planning for a merger of this magnitude was highly complex and involved a great deal of adaptation. School leaders said they did not know how to balance the need to plan with the recognition that the process, in reality, was unfolding with a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. Planning was also difficult because staff only had a few months and they did not always know how many of the closed school students would enroll in their schools, nor their final budgets. As the school year started, staff said they did not feel ready, and much of what had been written in the transition

planning documents quickly became irrelevant as realities shifted.

? Getting school buildings ready to receive students on time was challenging because the moving process was chaotic. After the Chicago Board of Education voted to determine school closures at the end of May 2013, there was only one month left until the end of the school year. The new school year was scheduled to start on August 26, 2013, giving staff just two months to prepare the buildings, move supplies and furniture, and hire personnel for the 2013?14 school year. One of the largest impediments to getting ready for the school year was that the moving process was perceived as poorly managed. Roughly 95 school buildings needed to be packed up for the move. Staff said boxes were strewn throughout the school buildings and many staff reported that they lost valuable school supplies and materials during the move. As a result of the disorder and chaos, teachers said they did not have everything they needed for instruction or to support students at the beginning of the school year. In addition to having to deal with the clutter of moving boxes and the chaos of unpacking, staff also lamented that some of the welcoming school buildings were unclean, some needed serious repairs, and many upgrades fell short of what was promised or were delayed. Poor building conditions were seen as a barrier to preparedness, undermining community hopefulness about the transition. The inadequacy of the building space resulted in administrators and teachers spending a lot of time unpacking, cleaning, and preparing the physical space, rather than on instructional planning and relationship building.

? Students and staff appreciated new investments in Safe Passage, technology, and resources. To help support students in welcoming schools, the district provided extra funds and technology the first year of the merger. Some of the extra funds were used to

8 For more information about the qualitative methods, see Appendix A.

9 In addition to using interview and focus group data, we also analyzed survey data from the My Voice, My School surveys given to CPS students and staff yearly.

UCHICAGO Consortium Research Report | School Closings in Chicago

3

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download